Daniel Mayer wrote:
Public domain is /not/ a license. It is the lack of a
license.
this is a prime example of youknowwhatimean
And then Encarta gets a huge free update by importing
all our work into their encyclopedia and then /not/
allowing us, or anybody else for that matter, to use
their improvements as a basis to further improve the
text. The whole cycle of positive feedback gets sucked
dry by parasites who take our text and enslaves it
under a proprietary license. Copyleft protects the
freedom of the content itself.
here lies our difference in thinking. to me that would be OK. let
encarta use my work if they want, let brittannica, let anyone use it..
it just doesnt bother me much, after all, much of wikipedia came from
the public domain.
What i figure is this, people who don't want to share their work, wont
share it anyways, they'll just waste man hours creating a new original
which they can not-share.. people who cant to contribute would do it
anyways.
Lightning